Select Page

Criminal Procedure: Investigation
University of North Carolina School of Law
Myers, Richard E.

Table of Contents
1 – Introduction. 2
2 – Due Process & the Criminal Justice System… 4
3 – Sixth Amendment5
1)     Jury Trial5
3)     Charges that permit D to invoke right to counsel:5
Eyewitness Procedures. 7
4)     Lineups. 7
5)     Photo ID procedures. 7
4 – Development of the Right to Be Left Alone. 8
3)     To Whom Does the 4A apply?. 9
5 – Exclusionary Rule. 10
Limits on the Exclusionary Rule. 11
1)     Good faith. 11
2)     Standing to invoke the exclusionary rule. 11
6 – What is a Search?. 12
3)     Open Fields Doctrine. 12
4)     Aerial Surveillance. 12
5)     Dog sniffing. 12
7 – Knowingly Expose to the Public. 13
2)     Informants. 13
3)     Inspection of Garbage. 13
6)     Technology. 13
7)     HYPOS. 14
8 – What is a Seizure. 15
9 – Probable Cause. 16
3)     PC and Informants. 16
4)     Appellate review of PC (& warrant)16
5)     Multiple people and PC.. 17
10 – Warrant Requirements. 18
2)     Execution of a Warrant18
3)     Warrants gone bad Franks v. DE.. 19
Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement20
1)     Exigency. 20
2)     Plain View Discovery. 20
3)     Automobiles. 21
4)     Arrests. 22
5)     Search Incident to Arrest (SIA)23
6)     Inventory Searches. 23
Consent Searches. 24
11 – Reasonableness in the 4A.. 25
2)     Reasonable suspicion. 25
3)     Police Profiling. 26
e)      4A & pretext26
4)     Special Needs. 27
c)      Police Roadblocks. 27
i)      Schools. 28
iv)     Administrative inspections. 28
5)     Police Use of Force. 29
12 – Interrogation Overview.. 30
Fifth Amendment & Miranda. 31
Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel34
Comparison of Miranda, 5A and 6A Counsel Rights. 35
1 – Introduction
1)      Entities Affecting Criminal Procedure
a)      Federal Constitution
i)        4th amendment: the right of the ppl to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unR searches and seizures (s/z) shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause (PC) supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
ii)      5th amendment: no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury… nor shall any person be subject to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
iii)    6th amendment: in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense
iv)    14th amendment: equal protection clause (racial profiling cases)
b)      State constitutions:
i)        May ratchet up protections set by the federal C (fed = floor)
c)      Legislatures
d)      LE agencies: make own administrative rules & sanctions
e)      Courts
i)        Warren Court (1953-1969): activist court used judicial power to make rules favorable to D over G; C protections for accused
ii)      Burger Court (1969-1986): shift toward crime control model
iii)    Rehnquist Court (1986-2005): favors crime control model
(1)   Discretion to L and LE
2)      Who should make crimpro? Feedback loop!!
a)      Courts
i)        Outcome reflects judgment about how much to trust LE
ii)      Con: no advisory opinions; supervise cases not police
iii)    Function through exclusionary rule
(1)   Criticized as windfall for guilty b/c get off b/c of police conduct
(2)   Alt: make crimes easier to prove (but risk punishing innocent)
b)      Legislatures
i)        Pro: ensures rules not changed easily à continuity of protections
ii)      Con: not sure who represents the criminals; majority in legislature does not equal majority of constituency; removed from police
c)      Police
i)        Significant portion of rules are self-administered.
ii)      Budgets may depend on agency’s appropriate use of discretion
3)      Models of Criminal Justice
a)      Crime Control
i)        Goal = repress crime
ii)      Values efficiency of investigation and prosecution (uniformity)
iii)    Assume most suspects are guilty
b)      Due Process
i)        Goal = safeguard liberties, including those of guilty (G restraint, fairness)
4)      Goals of CJS
a)      Accuracy
i)        Punish guilty (find, process)
(1)   Rehab
ii)      Protect innocent (procedural protections)
b)      Prevent crime (deterrence)
c)      Protect privacy
d)      Reflect values of society
i)        §1983 permits civil suits against police for violating rights
ii)      Be fair and perceived as fair
e)      Efficiency (economical)
5)      Rules v. Standards
a)      Rule = bright line test to achieve standards
i)        Less trust by SC in states or in judicial review, so want easy test
b)      Standard = value, morals, goals (malleable)
i)        Courts have more discretion when interpreting legal standards
2 – Due Process & the Criminal Justice System
1)      Due Process
a)      Procedural: ensures mechanisms, processes, and participation
b)      Substantive: underlying rights protected – life, liberty, property
2)      DP link to CJS
a)      5A and 14A: keep feds and states from depriving ppl of life, liberty, and property w/o DP
i)        Criminal law takes these things away, so constitutional protections are important
b)      History
i)        Independence à 14A (1776-1868): no police, jail rare, career public prosecutors, juries decide crimes
ii)      14A à 1960s: public prosecutors, police, plea bargain, jail more common. 14A applied BoR to states
iii)    1960s à current: courts reign in abusive CJS
c)      Hurtado v. CA (1884): first look at what due process means to crimpro
i)        D convicted of 1dM w/o indictment, was charged by “information” = document w/ relevant facts and charge that is given to court and defense counsel. Court ruled that grand jury indictment is not part of due process, and that as long as the D gets some process, states are free to choose a

felonies in federal court, then felonies in state court, finally to contemplation of imprisonment and actual imprisonment
Powell (1932)
Capital case
“Special circumstances”
Effective assistance, or adequate opportunity to obtain it, required in capital case if D unable to represent self (feeble minded)
Hamilton (1961)
Capital case
Outright right to counsel in capital case regardless of special circumstances.
Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)
Non-capital federal felony
Yes for all cases
Betts (1942)
Non-capital state felony
Only when no counsel violates fundamental fairness (declined to extend Zerbst)
Gideon (1963)
State criminal prosecutions (i.e., felony)
All D’s entitled to counsel in state court criminal prosecutions. Scope not defined. Interpreted later as all felonies.
Argersinger (1972)
Indigent + possible prison
Have to appoint counsel if prison possible
Scott v. IL (1979)
Actual imprisonment
CURRENT TEST is that no person may receive prison term unless they had counsel
4)      Jury trial + counsel
a)      Jury trial is about potential sentence, while attorney is about actual time. Could have right to jury trial and no lawyer, but practically speaking the ST wont limit itself to no jail time if giving jury trial.
Max Time (jury)
Actual time (counsel)
Counsel? Jury?
6 months
30 days
Yes counsel, but not jury since not > 6 months
1 year
2 days
Yes jury and counsel
1 year
Yes jury, no lawyer
Yes jury and counsel since felony
5)      Attachment of the right
a)      Wade & Gilbert at the start of adversarial criminal prosecution
i)        Kirby says “start of criminal prosecution” = when G has committed itself to prosecute and D is facing organized society w/ significant substantive and procedural intricacies
ii)      NOT: routine police investigation
iii)    YES: at indictment OR initiation of adversarial proceedings;
(1)   post-indictment lineup proceeding (Wade); preliminary hearing
b)      Takeaway rules from Wade, Kirby, and Moore
i)        6A right to counsel for corporeal ID (in person) at the initiation of adversarial criminal proceedings
(1)   When G focuses on a particular person: defendant, not suspect
(2)   Point differs by states
(3)   Critical stages:
(a)    preliminary hearing (courtroom ID, before indictment) – counsel under Moore)
(b)   Indictment (lineup after requires 6A right under Wade)
(c)    Initial appearance